*1
—
at -,
Warner’s premature remanding since we are to the
district court for a redetermination of the
appropriateness of forfeiture. If the district court in the exercise of its discretion orders forfeiture, may at time defendants raise Eighth arguments. their Amendment — Alexander, at - - -, U.S. 113 S.Ct. (concluding at 2775-76 that on remand order of criminal forfeiture under RICO should be analyzed under Excessive Fines Clause Amendment).
Eighth
III. CONCLUSION thorough many A review of the issues complex obscenity prosecution raised affirm leads us to the convictions of all defen- dants and remand the district court for a proceeding new forfeiture consistent with the 1467(a)(3). proper §of construction AF- PART; .FIRMED IN REMANDED IN PART. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Mario LABOR, The SECRETARY OF Defendant-Appellant.
No. 92-8572. Appeals, United States Court of Fifth Circuit. Dec. (1973). dcfendant/appcllees argue argument also L.Ed.2d 419 But this assumes construction of the statute which allows for for- being they that the videos are forfeited because videotapes inventory feiture of in their California 1467(a)(3), are believed to be obscene. Under videotapes based on the found obscene Dallas may they the videos be forfeited because were effectively community would violate the stan- obscenity related defendants’ convictions California, dards test set forth in Miller v. and, thus, subsequent punishment. in this case 15, 32-34, 2607, 2619-20, 93 S.Ct. *2 Mario contractor Garcia farm labor
bor that aliens, in violation employed illegal knowingly 1816(a) 1986), (repealed § turns of 29 U.S.C. stat- Secretary’s interpretation that of on the sup- sufficiency of the evidence ute and decision, contrary to which was porting that by the Administrative Law that reached AFFIRM. Judge. We
I. several provided workers for farm
Garcia region of Valley” El in the “Lower owners of County, spring In the Texas. Paso investiga- began an Labor Department of part hiring practices. As of that tion into his Patrol Border de- it investigation, reviewed May August 1983 to for portation records eight began almost legal odyssey Garcia’s 1986, when, a result in March years ago, Department, inter investigation, alia, $119,275 penalties. At in civil assessed ALJ, the hearing before the subsequent Stone, Coleman, J. William Wright Paul that, respects, in claimed several Department DC, Labor, Washington, Dept, of Migrant and Season- violated had Garcia defendant-appellant. Act, 29 Protection Agricultural al Worker Paso, TX, for El Spieczny, A. Thomas Concerning the §§ 1801-1872. plaintiff-appellee. Gar- us, ALJ concluded issue before illegal aliens employed knowingly cia had 1986).2 1816(a) (repealed §of
in violation later,3 Secretary years than four More $118,800 BARKSDALE, conclusion, in Circuit assessed this KING and reversed Before DUPLANTIER,1 ($400 of the District each penalties Judges, and labor con- aliens), Garcia’s farm and revoked Judge. The Sec- registration.4 certificate tractor BARKSDALE, Judge: Circuit knowingly retary’s conclusion his fail- on was based illegal aliens court’s re- the district appeal from This by her. prescribed check documents ure to Secretary of La- by the the decision versing for Gar- found The ALJ affirmed. court district District Louisi- Judge Eastern 1. District employed a farm charge he had ana, cia designation. on sitting by appropriate certifi- without labor contractor Department’s reversed, that the ALJ found 2. Because Secretary im- registration; cate of substantially justified, Garcia position was fine; court affirmed. the district $150 posing a ALJ found: attorney’s fees. The was awarded Secretary appeal. The rulings are not These spite of pursued case [Department] fees; attorney's the award also reversed no almost reliable fact that had court. the district not before was decision pursued position.... [It] its of dollars against for thousands [Garcia] action magni- delay of this saying that goes without It legitimate basis fact although was little there great concern. tude is or law. by the against ALJ found violations 1991, Lynn rendered the decision 4. When required records and keep failures to included Secretary Labor. Martin rights advising of their workers poster display a fine); ($110 Act under court, appealed good to the district tor relied faith on documentation alia, which, prescribed by Secretary.... inter held for Garcia on the issue knowingly employing illegal workers.5 Af- 1816(b) (repealed 29 U.S.C. Pursu- carefully proper essaying ter standard 1816(b), ant to prescribed *3 recognizing appropriate for review and the number of documents. See 29 C.F.R. Secretary, deference to be accorded the it 1986).6 (repealed § 500.59 reversed for two reasons: found insubstan- Secretary § The maintains that 1816 creat- Secretary’s tial evidence to con- objective standard; ed an geograph- that in a clusion; it held that the basis for that likely ic area which workers are prescribed check conclusion—failure to docu- encountered, failure check documents product impermissible ments —was the of an proscribed should be knowing deemed a em- construction of statute. 1816(a). ployment § under Accordingly, she “Department asserts that the need es-
II. presence tablish the aliens in Gar- cia’s workcrew in order for the burden to A. good shift to Garcia to show that he relied prescribed faith on the documentation.” Be- contends that the dis cause that, prescribed Garcia did not check the trict court when erred it held as a law, documents by manner advocated obligated by matter of Garcia was not Secretary,7 § she claims that he verify legal 1816 to violated his workers’ status in § 1816. country. provided part: That section recruit, No farm labor contractor shall The deference we accord the Secre hire, use, employ, knowledge, or tary’s interpretation of a statute she is services of individual who an is alien charged subject with administering is to the lawfully permanent admitted for resi- following well-known standard: by dence or who has not been authorized agency’s When a court reviews con- Attorney accept employ- General to struction of the statute which it adminis- ment. ters, it is questions. confronted with two 1816(a) 1986) § (repealed (empha- U.S.C. First, always, question is the whether Con- added). 1816(b) sis Section added the follow- gress directly spoken precise has to the ing: question at issue. If the intent of Con- clear, A farm labor gress contractor shall be consid- is that is the end of the mat- (a) complied ter; court, ered to have with subsection agency, as well as the of this section if give the farm labor contractor must effect to unambiguously ex- demonstrates that the farm pressed labor eontrac- Congress.... intent of [I]f the permits any person against 5. The Act whom civil 7. Garcia testified that he asked workers for a penalties imposed have been or whose farm la- security passport, social card or and hired a registration bor contractor's certificate of has possessed worker if he the former. The Secre court, been revoked to seek review in district tary correctly security asserts that a social card appeal with §§ to circuit court. See 29 U.S.C. requirements alone would not fulfill the of 29 1813(c), 1853(c). 1986). Still, § (repealed C.F.R. 500.59 the ALJ The district court ruled on cross-motions for Garcia, determined that who lacks formal edu course, summary judgment. ruling Of English, cation and is not conversant in "con record, undisputed based administrative structively complied requirement with this to the necessarily to which the district court's review is realistically expected.” extent that could be 706; § confined. See 5 U.S.C. see also 29 U.S.C. Secretary disagreed, finding finding "no basis for 1813(c), 1853(c) 706(2)(E) §§ (referring §to compliance”. constructive Because we hold that review). appropriate judicial standard of 1816(a) § determination that included, 6. Those placed duty § documents inter alia: birth 500.59 an affirmative on farm la certificates, passports, United States certificates prescribed bor contractors to check the docu naturalization, citizenship, certificates of Unit- impermissible interpretation ments is an INS, by ed States identification cards issued regulation, statute we need not reach the reports and consular of birth. 29 C.F.R. compliance. issue of constructive § (repealed 500.59 Labor, Department respect man United ambiguous with States silent or is statute (5th Cir.1985). 1247, 1248 Counter issue, for the question 776 F.2d specific agency’s answer inter support the is whether man does court construction permissible to the predecessor on a based It pretation. involved statute. Act, Farm Labor Contractor namely, the (re U.S.A., Act, §§ Resources Chevron, v. Natural Registration Inc. 842-43, Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 1983); 40.51(p) promulgated pealed Defense 2781-82, L.Ed.2d 104 S.Ct. that act. under defer to (1984). we do not Accordingly, regulation in statute either the Unlike the clear in frustrates which interpretation farm here, required that a 40.51(p) issue Drilling Co. Nicklos Congress. See tent *4 evidence an (5th labor “must contractor 828, Cowart, Cir. 831-32 F.2d affirma 927 v. — inquiry -, of each showing a bona 112 of 1991) (en banc), tive aff'd, U.S. fide (1992); legal see also a em 2589, employee’s státus as” 379 prospective 120 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (em 9, at Chevron, n. 104 S.Ct. 40.51(p) (repealed) § at 843 467 U.S. 29 C.F.R. ployee. authority (“The the final judiciary is n. 9 v. added); 2781 generally, Counterman phasis see , and must statutory construction issues on F.Supp. 607 Dept. States United Labor which are constructions reject administrative (5th (W.D.Tex.), aff'd, F.2d 1247 286, 776 288 intent.”). congressional clear contrary to Cir.1985). nor the regulation Neither interpretation as the Insofar an explicitly required in issue statute “with knowl- effectively out the reads § 1816 showing. affirmative it frustrates we hold that edge” requirement, 1816(a) Congress. Section intent of the clear B. knowledge” an “with employing proscribed 1816(b) merely set Section illegal worker.8 say, to Needless labor contrac- means-by a farm which a forth illegal work that Garcia conclusion of such an absence demonstrate tor could alia, by sub be, supported inter ers must affir- nature of knowledge; it was an 1813(c), §§ 29 evidence. stantial plain read the do we Nor mative defense. 706(2)(E). 1853(c); § Substantial 5 U.S.C. 1816(b) an affirmative place to §of language a rea as evidence is “such relevant to check contractors farm labor obligation on adequate to accept might as mind sonable certainly, (though, prescribed documents v. Pe Richardson support a conclusion.” so).9 doing from they would benefit 1427, 1420, 401, 389, rales, 91 S.Ct. U.S. 402 to a attention our directs (1971) Consolidated (quoting 842 28 L.Ed.2d 29 cited court which prior this decision 229, NLRB, 197, 59 305 v. Co. Edison support (repealed) 40.51(p) § C.F.R. (1938)). is “It 206, 217, 126 L.Ed. 83 S.Ct. contractor farma labor proposition that scintilla, less than a mere more than inquire into a duty to affirmative “has an Shalala, 1 Spellman v. preponderance.” as a United status employee’s prospective Cir.1993) (citation (5th omit 357, 360 F.3d lawfully authorized person citizen or States ted). See Counter States.” in the United to work awareness employed workers with who subjective those particular language requires a 8. This Secretary fails illegal status. The a violation of workers’ to find state order mental synonymous which would 1816(a). knowledge” any language is statute “With § to cite And, Dictionary to Law fails “knowingly”. Black's she interpretation. See with her usually phrases are ambiguous Such ed. on this 872 is silent assert issue, of, at, descriptive an individual’s directed own, abandoning any for defer basis thereby particular fact. 545, awareness conscious interpretation her to ence Smith, 548 F.2d v. United States See id. Cf. (5th Cir.) ("the prove that must Government course, contractor labor proof that a farm 9. Of which knowingly did act the defendant to check fails employs illegal workers both forbids; intending to say purposely law which from is evidence prescribed documents denied, added), law”) (emphasis cert. violate employer hired might one infer 2685, 959, L.Ed.2d 277 S.Ct. 431 U.S. knowledge”. “with workers Therefore, sought punish Congress (1977). in which an In situations ALJ and a numbered four to five out of 100 to 150 Secretary disagree, we “must examine the workers. findings [Secretary]
evidence and
critically
more
than
would if the
[we]
[Secre
tary]
in agreement.”
and the ALJ were
See
hearing,
Department
At
presented
NLRB,
922,
Syncro Corp. v.
597 F.2d
only two witnesses who were not authorized
(5th Cir.1979) (citation omitted). Although
work
the United States and had worked
heightened scrutiny
does not alter the
Ortiz,
11, 1985;
April
Garcia: Manuel
on
review,
substantial evidence standard of
Alvillar,
10-11,
April
Ricardo
1985.11 To-
require
apply
particularly
does
us to
it with a
gether,
testimony
proof
their
that two
eye, especially
credibility
keen
when
determi
employed by
workers had been
issue,
nations are in
as discussed
infra.
days.
for a collective total of three
Alvillar
NLRB,
Corp.
Universal Camera
340 U.S.
Garcia;
had no contact
it appears
doubt-
456,
468-69,
71 S.Ct.
10. Garcia school in Department Mexico after sixth provided but the had not grade; speaks English. Garcia; he neither nor reads the statements to the ALJ sustained the objection. proof, Department In its offer of Anaya, Department’s 11. compliance Ricardo the' stated that the statements "would be cumulative” investigation, officer who conducted the testified testimony. and Alvillar’s Ortiz’s that, 1985, April May and he took statements persons being deported, from ten whom he 12.Indeed, supports the record the inference that April claimed had worked for Garcia: seven on longer working Perea was no for Garcia. Garcia Ortiz); 1; (including May Alvillar and two on workers, affirmed that Perea “was” one then, of his May and Anaya three on 2. Of those testi- suggesting longer that Perea no fied that is. This would Alvillar Ortiz could be located testify; operating Department order to be consistent with Garcia's offered the standard eight procedure upon discovering illegal statements of the other into evidence. Gar- workers in because, objected among things, cia pre- other employ: go.” his "let them hearing required exchange order proposed But, agree we on the lists. the names 2. prove that not the lists do ALJ prove to offered remaining evidence The aliens. knowingly documentary. Sev- the Act violation how I- explain The does certification stipulation, by admitted were documents eral words, it does not in other generated; 213 is objec- right to make reserved but of the I- the content any explanation to add Three docu- purpose. weight or to tions as noted, the court Perhaps, as district review. our to are relevant ments as to testified could have' certifying officer approxi- 5, first, consisted exhibit an ex- generated. Such are how I-213s Naturalization Immigration mately 40 weight we to the might added planation have (I-213s), Alien forms Deportable Record attach to these documents. I-213s reflect April all dated Secretary presents Patrol conten- Although Border they prepared are admissibility aliens. of these deporting regarding to prior tions officers employ- support the documents,14 Garcia as advanced I-213s list few are Most of not, alien, Apparently a few do 'refer- given them. deportable weight to be er explains I-213s, No evidence asserts that illegible.13 ring some are respect; we any meaningful “pro- required forms Department these they Obviously, were them how we from the item”. discern author of cannot duce the to Garcia reference how the not have to Department does generated, agree; each on them. created agent who produce came to the border of, things, the among other because 6, compiled is exhibit document The second recall the facts he would “improbability that the inves- Anaya, who conducted by Ricardo deportation.” particular surrounding one of dates a series consists of tigation. It Quezada, 754 F.2d United States persons names de- with the deportation, *6 Cir.1985). Nevertheless, the De- 1196 1800) (total on those approximately of ported someone with have called should partment (As name is infra, same the discussed dates. “testimony relat- give to date.) sufficient Ac- than one under more often listed keeping the in followed ing procedures the “daily ais Anaya, the exhibit cording to See id. records”. reviewing [de- the upon summary ... made patrol kept by the border logs portation] that the Secretary maintains Finally, the shown station”, being those the names weight of probative “trustworthiness But, once by Garcia. employed logs as in the integ- ... the by assured is these documents clarifying the evidence have again, we no specifically, More rity public officials.” of be came to by names which these means no indication “[t]here that she contends with Garcia. associated were un- involved ... officials ... that 7, pre- document, also exhibit third preparing in trustworthy incompetent or that 297 names Anaya, by lists pared any documents, other rea- there nor is these Of than once. 6 more in exhibit appear accuracy the trustworthiness to doubt son probative course, any more this list is not not again, we do Once records.” of these of ille- knowing employment alleged stated, Garcia’s but, we do this; simply doubt it which was list from than gal workers generated I-213s how were know either derived. with the to be associated came or how them. For identified on aliens deportable by a Border certification In evidence engage in agent Patrol did a Border example, I-213s for all are that Patrol there officer 7, Likewise, 6 and lost; that appears exhibits original has been exhibit Apparently, But, copies infra, lost. been have discussed nevertheless, dispute. in are not the contents excerpts. record page are of each the first I- acknowledges two of the dispute; are not again, contents Once Also, employer. not list Garcia 213s did weight concerning only arises conflict were 14 of the 1-213s' recognizes at least she given the exhibits. event, any can the essential we infer illegible. In referring copies of by admissibility; of the exhibit contents their do doubt 14. We excerpts. provided in the record 1-213s stipulated the two to that. 282 thorough investigation addition, deportee’s Vera, In officer, the TEC liaison
employment history country in this and make testified that he believed that Garcia never independent finding that Garcia had em- knowingly employed worker. Be- worker; or, ployed agent Vera, did the officer, cause a state visited the fields put Garcia’s name on the 1-213 because an in which employed Garcia’s workers were at illegal alien said that he him? worked for In weekly purpose least for the ascertaining any the absence of factual basis status, record legal those workers’ partic- we attach determining by the means which Garcia weight ular testimony. to this The ALJ has been identified on Border Patrol docu- gave stated that “special weight he to Mr. deportable aliens, as an employer ments testimony Vera’s for the reason that he had agree Anaya’s we with the ALJ that testimo- no vested interest in the outcome of this ny making necessary fell “short of con- proceeding reputation other his own than employment nection” between the I-213s and farming community.” ques- The ALJ by workers Garcia.15 extensively; obviously, tioned Vera the ALJ’s
credibility
significant.
determination is
Because the ALJ found Vera and Garcia
preceding
We have serious doubts that the
credible,
testimony
their
detracts from the
evidence,
by
Secretary,
offered
produced
weight to be
presented
afforded the evidence
“more than a
proof
mere scintilla” of
Department.
Camera,
See Universal
illegal workers with knowl-
488,
(“The
retary dispute does not credibility the ALJ’s AFFIRMED. determinations; rather, disagreed she with probative weight the ALJ afforded the KING, documentary Judge, Circuit Accordingly, dissenting: evidence. we at particular significance tach to the ALJ’s I in majority’s concur interpretation of credibility determinations in this case. § However, 29 (repealed U.S.C. 1816 knowingly testified that he never I because believe that the record contains workers, illegal and that when he substantial evidence in of the Secre- became employ, aware that in tary one was his he of Labor’s determination that Garcia would fire the worker. The knowingly ALJ determined hired or recruited aliens not au- “believable”, that Garcia was and we attach States, thorized to work in the United I significance credibility to this respectfully determination. dissent. Counterman, again 15. The once cites thoroughly does testimony not discuss the sur- claiming compels that it us to reverse the district rounding logs the introduction of the and sum- Specifically, court. man, she asserts that in Counter- simply testimony maries. We do not know what holding “an ALJ based his that a [Farm event, explain was introduced to them. In habitually Labor Contractor] had hired goes saying without we that cannot look to the solely testimony aliens on the of one alien records in other cases to determine whether the logs witness and [Border on Patrol] and sum- supported in conclusion this case is maries introduced evidence and into testified to by substantial evidence. Counterman, by however, compliance a officer."
283 reversed, holding prohibited statute Interpretation Statutory Transportation Department of from “ob whether in this case is issue The threshold literating] any distinction between knowl interpreta- accept the we must ignorance.” Id. at 114. The court edge and 1986) and (repealed § 1816 29 U.S.C. tion of and have that “knew” “should observed also Secre- regulations. The accompanying its may equated if some rule of law be known” a farm labor contractor tary argues that inquiry. person’s failure to make a penalizes 1816(a) rea- or should § if he knows violates ease, rule existed howev Id. No such recruiting hiring or he is sonably know that er, been called to our and no rule has such country. in this work not authorized to aliens key instant This is the case. attention 1816(a) appears to by terms its own Section and the instant case between distinction hiring is that one knowledge actual make Labor, Dep't v. United States Counterman of a violation. aliens an element unauthorized (5th Cir.1985), F.2d 1816(b) a labor provides that farm Section spe regulation a emphasized that we 1816(a) which by § ex- comply with can contractor inqui duty of cifically imposed an affirmative certain relying good faith amining and that Coun ry on farm labor contractors pro- evidencing a documents prescribed regula complied with had not terman in this to work employee is entitled spective 1816(b) § implementing regulation The tion. correctly points majority country. As duty. an impose affirmative 1816(b) purport to did out, however, § does farm labor contractor only way for a be the § also sheds statute to The successor 1816(a). § comply with interplay proper between light on some presumption argues that 1816(a) (b). re- 1816 was Section §§ labor contractor if a farm arise should Immigra- § by 1324a placed U.S.C. aliens unauthorized employing found (IRCA). Act Reform Control tion agri- immigration of which an area in it, generally § IRCA, like before much this widespread, and that workers is cultural hiring knowingly employer from prohibits be rebuttable should presumption 8 U.S.C. unauthorized alien. 1816(b) companion and its § compliance with 1324a(a)(l)(A). compliance faith Good § (repealed) § 500.59 29 C.F.R. regulation, procedures is verification prescribed con- a farm labor the documents (prescribing charge that one defense” to an “affirmative employment sta- verify may use to tractor unauthorized aliens. hired recruited has tus). 1324a(a)(3).1 legislative histo- that, pro in a majority agree with the I de- affirmative ry explains how IRCA the burden ceeding brought under employer If an follows. works fense on the knowledge remains proving actual required docu- checked that he proves place, In the first at all times. government verification the attested and retained ments lan plain with the reading is consistent pre- a “rebuttable forms, established he has *8 statute, the while the guage of At “good faith.” so in he did sumption” that analogous case is not. The interpretation is govern- the to burden shifts point the this Servs., v. Research Inc. Courier to Contract faith. good prove lack to ment Admin., F.2d Programs Special and an is not noted that be It should Cir.1991). a involved ease also That defense, government the absolute if conduct certain proscribed that statute offering presumption the rebut could Depart at 113. The “knowingly.” Id. done reason- did documents the proof that however, promulgat Transportation, ment genuine, to on their face ably appear have included “should regulation that aed pretextu- process was that the verification “knew,” and meaning known” within with ... colluded employer al, that against Contract regulation its enforced documents, etc. falsifying in employee Circuit Id. Seventh Services. Courier employers. mandatory given are Interestingly, contractors farm labor 1324a(b). 1324a(a)(l)(B)(ii), Compliance §§ IRCA. special under treatment now procedures is prescribed verification course, employer even if the does not Of The exact number of unauthorized aliens defense, actually during period that Garcia seek to establish affirmative hired question By proving a violation of more difficult to discern. burden stipulation, recruitment, government several hiring, prohibition exhibits were or referral admitted into evidence. One exhibit awas always government by remains on the a— forms, forty collection of some all dat- preponderance of the evidence the case 11, 1985, April many ed of which listed Gar- beyond penalties of civil a reasonable employer deportable cia as the aliens. penalties. doubt in the case of criminal Another deport- list of names of aliens 99-682(1), H.R.Rep. Cong., No. 99th 2d Sess. during period investigation ed of the (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. totalling person some 1800names in all. The similarity 5661. The close between the compiled who the list testified that the list employ- scheme forth in set IRCA most deported included the names of those § ers and that set forth 1816 for farm aliens whose 1-213 forms listed Garcia as strongly suggests they labor that contractors employer. their A second list showed the Thus, operate way. should the same as the names of those unauthorized aliens whose concludes, majority proving the' burden of appeared names on the first list more than that Garcia had actual that he was majority once—almost 300 gives names. The hiring unauthorized aliens remained at all slight credence to these exhibits because the government. times on the government explain did not offer evidence to agents prepared how the who the 1-213 Substantial Evidence forms determined that Garcia em- disagree majority’s I with the conclusion ployer particular being deported. alien that there is no substantial evidence Admittedly, carry this evidence would far support Secretary’s finding record to weight more if supported by it were knowingly hired unauthorized aliens. independent investigation patrol of a border majority concedes evidence exists to agent than if merely product it were of a suppoi’t finding that Garcia hired interrogation brief just of an alien lacks, according aliens. What the records to prior deportation. support, Without such majority, is substantial evidence that he great weight is difficult to attach a deal of knowingly. did so I turn first to the evi- documentary evidence. dence that Garcia hired aliens because Nevertheless, I believe that a reasonable evidence, my the sheer volume accept documentary mind could evidence view, raises inference that he did so know- adequate the conclusion that ingly. Under substantial evidence stan- employed numerous unauthorized dard, was entitled to draw that aliens, employed many and that he in fact inference, applicable and under the standard them on more than one occasion. These review, of appellate we should defer to her permit conclusions in turn the inference that decision to do so. unauthorized aliens know- ingly.2 Two hearing witnesses testified at the be- they AL fore the J that were Mexican citizens Thus, whole, on the I believe that substan- country authorized to work in this supports tial Secretary’s finding they had worked for Garcia. Texas in this case. The substantial evidence stan-
Employment
Agent
Commission
Eli Vera
dard,
known,
very
it is well
ais
low standard
*9
repeatedly
also testified that he
found unau-
requires
indeed.
It
evidence that amounts to
working
thorized aliens
(up
Garcia
to four
scintilla,
more than a mere
but less than a
any given day)
or five on
and that
in-
he
preponderance. Additionally, under the sub-
Garcia,
formed
multiple
his discoveries on
may
stantial evidence standard we
not re-
evidence,
occasions.
weigh
may
try
nor
we
courts,
noted,
Many
may
Charlow,
accept
ing §
generally
"willful
Robin
Will
See,
ignorance”
equivalent
knowledge.
as the
Ignorance
Culpability,
and Criminal
70 Tex.
ful
Donovan,
34,574,
e.g., Garcia v.
101 Lab.Cas. V
(1992).
L.Rev. 1351
(CCH) (M.D.Fla.1984) (interpret-
285 accept a reasonable mind could are Because in the evidence novo. Conflicts de issues government resolve, presented the courts. evidence not Secretary to for the (5th Shalala, 357, the conclusion reached adequate 360 1 F.3d Spellman v. Cir.1993). event, findings in the Secretary, the conflict her should be any by the In 614, great. Sullivan, is not instant case v. 914 F.2d in the Selders affirmed. evidence . Cir.1990) knowledge (5th of the fact any denied 617 aliens, a de- unauthorized employing he actually he evidence that by the nial belied gov- If aliens droves. employed such accepted that Garcia evidence
ernment’s dur- unauthorized aliens employed some 1800 question, this amounts ing period during that force total work of his some 36% trust Secretary entitled to The time. documentary as circumstantial evidence knowledge over Garcia’s evidence Garcia’s Secretary was also self-serving The denial. STONE, Clayton Wray In the Matter of testimony that Vera’s to discount entitled Stone, Debtors. and Jeannine Jr. if-we knowledge. Even Garcia lacked he could credibility granted, take Vera’s Wife, Wray STONE, Clayton Jr. of Garcia’s direct not have had Stone, Appellants, Jeannine state, in fact he testified mental had to believe that no reason he had any intentionally employed knowingly or ever CAPLAN, al., Appellees. et Melvin Secretary could reason- illegal aliens. evi- the conflict ably have resolved 93-2187. No. against Garcia. dence notes, disagreement majority Appeals, As the Court United States Secretary does not between ALJ Fifth Circuit. way modify the substantial 3, 1994. Jan. Corp. v. Camera See Universal standard. 469, 456, 496, NLRB, 474, 71 S.Ct. (1951). Although cred Garcia’s L.Ed. 456 in. the ALJ’s certainly a factor
ibility was lightly could that the decision it in dismiss, to discount was entitled she testimo between Garcia’s light of the conflict the re from ny “obvious inferences and the Delchamps, Inc. v. record.” mainder of the Cir.1979). (5th NLRB, F.2d accept an Secretary is not bound over conflict credibility determination ALJ’s evidence, the ALJ re particularly when ing by an interested “testimony given lies Rus witness, motives.” relating to his own NLRB, 407 F.2d Mfg. v.Co. sell-Newman Cir.1969). Thus, ALJ’s was not as to credibility determination case. instant binding on the as to credibility determination The ALJ’s testi certainly binding; Vera’s Vera was *10 his all, necessarily limited to mony, after knowledge. Garcia’s own beliefs about